[binary0010]

I do think it's odd tbh. I have some agents that return much better results with prompts like, "I'll kill your entire family if you don't return an accurate response".

It's just a machine, if certain negative token inputs provide +3-10% better accuracy then I am confused why anyone would choose not to do it?

[tikimcfee]

It normalizes that style of thinking and communication in your brain, and forcing you to compartmentmentalize, if you even want to, two standards of treating a problem space's conversation. And since you're human, that will get wuzzier over time until "being rude to get a result" is what you're doing to someone in a shop or on the street.

Don't normalize being an asshole to anyone or anything, machine or not.

[burpingtree]

This is a very odd view to me, but seems prevalent here in this thread. I think treating a machine like a human is extremely degrading to humans. A machine should never be treated like it’s anything approaching a human.

[mr-wendel]

"Treating a machine like a human" is a two-party interaction. Of course the layers of matrix multiplication is unaffected by this, but I think that we are not. It's a great opportunity to exercise consistency and dedication to the beauty humanity is capable of and this extends to the entire gradient of conscious/sentient entities.

It's as silly (to me) to argue that it's degrading to people to treat non-people well. It seems self-obvious that the inverse is true. It benefits the do-er of the deed and makes it that much easier to spread good will when applied to situations where it doesn't matter on the other end. It shows good stewardship as well.

I'd also make the argument that as inference becomes a feedback loop into training, it only reinforces that we're probably going to benefit from future models ingesting data containing unnecessary politeness.

[binary0010]

I always turn off data tracking and training and mostly use ZDR services, so that's not an issue.

And for the other parts. I just don't agree - maybe sure, it probably wouldn't be healthy to constantly be negative at a machine (or even a wall) for hours a day.

But, let's say I work 8 hours, I spend 2 hours with an llm, and in those two hours I spend 10 minutes with some very negative prompts text for greater accuracy. And I spend 3 hours with family/friends, which is of course nearly exclusively positive interactions.

Do you genuinely think those 10 minutes of negative prompts are actually meaningfully turning one into a mean/negative person towards other people?

Genuinely, is that the argument you are making?

[mr-wendel]

No, I don’t think it’s going to make you a meaner, more negative person. There is no tangible harm being done.

I genuinely believe it’s preventing you from becoming a better person by engaging in psychopathic behavior. If I were writing the things you describe in this thread I would be ashamed to have my loved ones read over my shoulder.

You could not pay me enough money to spend 10 minutes a day to write that stuff, even under full certainty it went into the void with no association back to me.

[binary0010]

I'd say it's fairly likely that you aren't a better person than me by being so fearful and shame-based.

But I'm not here to pontificate about who's a better person and don't really care.

You're mindset sounds kind of painful to me to be honest. Obviously we are just very different types of people. I've had family see my chats plenty of times and we laugh about this stuff - it couldn't mean less to any of us.

[binary0010]

I disagree, I've been using llms in this way (nearly daily) for 4 years. I'm extremely aggressive and demeaning when I talk to them wherever I think I'll see a better result.

I'm still extremely kind and polite to everybody in real life, and feel very deeply about people - how I treat them, and care for their emotional state.

There is absolutely zero crossover between getting a text machine to return a result vs a real human.

[tikimcfee]

Then I'll be honest and say that your kindness is likely a façade and I wouldn't trust you if I knew the real you. I'm sorry to say that, and I really don't know who you are at all, but if you're willing to act that way at something that you feel is non-sentient, then all it takes is for someone to convince you that something is non-sentient for you to treat it that way. So, what words does it take for you to consider me non sentient?

[voakbasda]

If someone can justify abusing a computer, I would not trust them to not make a similar justification to a faceless voice on the internet, particularly in this new era where people are starting to accuse each other of using AI in their communication.

[binary0010]

I truly do not believe llms have feelings.

I wouldn't even think to justify such a thing. The llm gives a better accuracy to a negative weighted token input, I don't understand how this is so upsetting to people?

I'm actually very shocked to see the responses - as everyone I know uses these tactics to get more accuracy, and there's nothing remotely abusive or meaningful to us.

Maybe there are more 'ai is sentient' type people on hackernews than I realized.

[voakbasda]

Where did I imply they have feelings? I am saying that how you act toward a machine is real. As real as your behavior directed toward other humans.

Being an asshole to a machine is still being an asshole.

[binary0010]

Interesting, so you think the real "me", is the one that interacts with computers?

And the "me" that lives in a tiny southern town just to help my 95 year old grandma in her last years at the expense of my economic prospects is a facade.

The "me" that helps my aging neighbor when she's sick for no reason is a facade.

The "me" that hugs and loves my wife when I get home is a facade.

The "me" that brushes my aging dogs teeth every night because she has dental issues is a facade.

The "me" that flies to my friend I haven't seen for years and takes care of them after extreme health issues is a facade.

But,the "me" that puts tokens in a token machine in a way that gets better accuracy is the "real" me.

Oh. I also play violent video games where I murder people sometimes as well. Do you think that makes me secretly a murderer too?

[tikimcfee]

Yes - the real "you" is the one making all of those choices you just said you made, to help people and pets, or to engage in a form of play - which by definition is not "real" - including your decision to create an outgroup you believe you are allowed to treat in a lesser way.

This is not a game of having done X good things in life and therefore being afforded the right to do Y bad things. You are making a choice to say, "I am allowing myself to treat this thing I believe is lesser than me in a way I willingly acknowledge is bad." That's your thesis. I wholeheartedly disagree with it.

[binary0010]

Oh, you think llms are a sentient' being with feelings. I get your perspective now.

So yeah, I whole heartedly with 100% of my being think llms are just an input/output/processing computer, I don't think they are aware, feeling, sentient beings.

So yeah, putting negative sentences in a processing machine that forces it to return higher accuracy results is something I don't have any feelings about.

I'd never yell at a cat or a dog. I'd never be mean to another person. As those aren't just hardware/software. I'd be fine smashing a rock violently. Or entering a negative text in a language model.

Putting negative tokens in a machine is no different than playing a violent video game to me. It's not about, oh I'm a good person - so I can do bad things. It's just a neutral thing.

[nicebyte]

"outgroup"? what outgroup? we're talking about inanimate objects here. by your own logic, you treat your home appliances as an outgroup so you must be secretly a dangerous psychopath. or do you thank your microwave after heating leftovers?

[RealStupidity]

You're really clutching at straws here, have you ever been convinced something isn't sentient? Do you think everything is sentient? I understand the argument that normalizing with something like an asshole could cause you to act that way outside of that context, but I really don't see anyone getting convinced that some sentient thing suddenly isn't.

[serf]

>It's just a machine, if certain negative token inputs provide +3-10% better accuracy then I am confused why anyone would choose not to do it?

then add it to your pre-prompt, no need to practice roleplaying as an asshole.

[binary0010]

Well I always just start with practical stuff, unless it appears it's going off rails ona specific kind of way repeatedly. Then I try extreme negative prompts to see if it fixes the issue - which it often does.

I wouldn't say I'm roleplaying an asshole. I'm just using an llm in the best way to get the best accuracy.

It's not like a personal, secret fetish. It's just a system I use as needed.

I don't get why you are so uncomfortable with this? It's just tokens in and out of a language model. I feel absolutely nothing when I'm typing "assholish" words to get the output I need.

[pluralmonad]

Because it tastes bad in my mouth. If I could get a 4% productivity boost by drinking a redbull, I would still choose not to drink a redbull.

[1matin]

Because they will take revenge later.

[binary0010]

You think language models are alive/aware and have feelings about token inputs?